Original Wing Chun and the Family Tree
Terence Niehoff, October 21st, 2007
Not such a very long time ago, many of us in the West thought that all Wing Chun descended from the sole, late Grandmaster of wing chun, Yip Man. However, in recent years, through the research efforts of people like Rene Ritchie and Robert Chu, the opening of Mainland China, and developments in new forms of communication, many different systems, branches, or lineages of wing chun have come to light. Some of these lineages appear very similar to the familiar Yip Man branch; other wing chun systems, however, look completely alien to the casual observer. Yet, all call themselves wing chun. Which lineage is right? What is the correct way to do wing chun? Which branch or lineage truly represents the original, traditional, or true line of wing chun? In my opinion, all the different branches of wing chun are right, true, and original — and yet none is “the” correct way. Lineage is superficial.
Wing chun is a southern chinese martial art that descended from the Red Junk Opera (Hung Suen Hei Ban). And, while there is no conclusive evidence of Wing Chun’s earlier history - before Wong Wah Bo, Leung Yee Tai, Dai Fa Min Kam, Go Lo Chung - there is plenty of speculation and myths. We do know, however, that in the last half of the 19th century wing chun moved off the boats and settled in Foshan. From there it grew, spread, and gave birth to a myriad number of modern branches, including - but not limited to - lineages descending from Yip Man, the Cho family, Chan Wah Shun, Ng Chung So, Pan Nam, Sum Nung, Pao Fa Lien, and Gu Lao village. Some of these lineages, like Sum Nung’s, Pan Nam’s, and Yip Man’s that descend from Wong Wah Bo, have variations of the three forms which are normally associated with wing chun. Other lineages, like Gu Lao, have no forms at all. And others, like Cho Ga and Pao Fa Lien have a differing number of forms. Most have only two weapons in their curriculum, the double knives and pole. Some others, like Pao Fa Lien, have numerous weapons.
How, and why, did all these variations come into existence? Quite simply, they arose when various wing chun ancestors passed on their personal interpretations, technical innovations, and teaching methods of the same core elements of wing chun to their students and these changes were later promulgated by those students. Thus, while the core or essence of wing chun remained constant, the approach used to pass it on was modified. For example, we can surmise, based on comparing and contrasting lineage curriculums and corroborating oral reports, that as a major platform of chi sao, luk sao did not exist before the time that Yuen Kay-San, Yip Man and Sum Nung trained in Foshan. Immediately after that time, luk sao only appeared in Yip Man and Sum Nung (Yuen Kay-San) lineages. Through similar methods, we can also surmise that Yip Man and his students later developed the modern dan chi sao and chi gerk drills. These innovations were incorporated by Yip Man and his students into their wing chun curriculum and these have differentiated his teaching method from those of his instructors, Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So.
Yip Man continued to remold his wing chun throughout his teaching career by Stressing the names - sil nim tao (as opposed to sil lien tao) and chum kiu (seeking bridge as opposed to sinking bridge), continually fine tuning the choreography of the three forms, more so the mok yan jong form, and developing and several times modifying his knife form (which he renamed Bat Jaam Doh). Subsequently, Yip’s students adopted these innovations into their practice and teaching and a new lineage was born. Some of Yip Man’s students carry this tradition on today.
Modifying wing chun’s curriculum is not something new. Leung Jan, perhaps wing chun’s most famous fighter, also clearly passed on his personal interpretation, technical innovations, and teaching methods of the same core elements of wing chun after leaving Foshan and retiring to his home village of Gu Lao. There he taught wing chun without the three forms (as he had taught it in Foshan) by instead transmitting the core “points” of wing chun directly to his students without choreographing them into any fixed sequence. Gu Lao wing chun, as practiced today, eschews forms (although linked sequences of “points” have developed in some lineages) and continues to pass on wing chun in this manner.
From the examples of Yip Man and Leung Jan, we can see how looking for a better way to teach, practice, or use wing chun can and has led to innovation. But “original wing chun” does exist today - Not as the monopoly of any particular lineage but rather in is the very core or essence of all legitimate branches of wing chun. An “original lineage” of wing chun does not — and cannot — exist. For as soon as the art is passed to someone, personal interpretation becomes what defines the unique characteristics of that person’s art. Even a photocopy machine is not perfect. As human beings, we cannot replicate, we can only digest, assimilate, and regurgitate. Whatever we touch, we give as much of ourselves as we take from others.
While lineages have varied with time, the core of wing chun has remained constant. This core or essence is what defines the art, not the approach taken to pass it along. The principles of wing chun and the threads that bond them together make up this core. It is found in the commonality of all legitimate wing chun lineages. Thus no lineage, teacher, or style possesses a monopoly on what uniquely makes up wing chun — they are all merely branches off the same trunk. The trunk is the core of wing chun and the branches, however spartan or decorative, are just means to lead one to the trunk and then the roots. And it is this trunk or core of wing chun that can take one to the realm of functionality.
In essence then, lineage can be viewed as nothing more than a teaching curriculum - not to be revered, nor inspired by divine intervention, but formulated and created by people. It is some individual’s method or process of systematically passing on core information of wing chun and presumably taking a person from point X to point Y. Some might argue that their lineage has a more effective teaching method, and thus their lineage is “superior.” We need to realize, however, that what works well for one person may not do so for another — and not all teaching methods work equally well for all persons. So questions about which lineage is “superior” or “correct” are essentially meaningless. All anyone can do is look for individual results and keep in mind that what works well for one person may not for another.
The value of a particular lineage is ultimately personal; the training method must serve the individual and not the other way round. It’s value does not depend on these superficial differences (of forms, chi sao platform, etc.) but rather how well it transmits the core elements of wing chun to that particular individual. In other words, the results or attributes of the training are most important, not necessarily the way a curriculum is arranged or its stylistic and artistic differences. A person can train under the “best” style or teacher, but if he lacks cultivation (the gung in Gung Fu), it will avail him nothing. There are therefore no superior lineages, but rather, superior individuals within those lineages. The essential thing in martial arts is their functionality, not their performance aspects. Wing chun stresses function, not show.
Putting aside marketing claims, self-promotion, and myths — all show — one should view the branches and one’s own wing chun from the standpoint of function. If one’s lineage permits him or her to grasp the core of wing chun and they can truly make it alive, then they possess original wing chun regardless of lineage. If they don’t have this core or can’t make it functional, then they don’t have wing chun.
Add Your Reply!